[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Locking server implementation: libsvn_repos or libsvn_fs

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-10-29 16:49:47 CEST

On Oct 29, 2004, at 8:11 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:

> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> cmpilato@localhost.localdomain wrote on 10/28/2004 11:08:37 PM:
>>> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
>>>> Here are the arguments I know of for putting the lock table in the
>>>> FS
>>>> back end:
>>> You forgot one:
>>> * If the community can't agree about whether to use Berkeley DB
>>> or
>>> some flat-file system to implement the lock table.
>> That was the one point I wanted to raise as well. We are nearing
>> completion on our port of Subversion to OS/400. In all likelihood, we
>> could not have done the port without the fsfs backend. So I am
>> hoping and
>> praying that the locking implementation will not require BDB, at least
>> when using a fsfs backend.
> I think that is guaranteed. Having provided the feature of a BDB-less
> server in 1.1, compatibility rules forbid removing that feature again
> for any 1.x release - and common sense suggests that it would be
> foolish to *ever* remove that feature.

I'm not worried about this. If we decide to implement locks in the
repos library, we can use "some random dbm"... whatever happens to be
picked up by APR. I believe that APR *always* picks up some system dbm
library. There's a whole apr_dbm_*() set of APIs, and mod_dav_svn
already uses them to manage a private table in repos/dav/.... even when
the repository itself is fsfs.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 29 16:51:46 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.